Contents

User talk:Tom Reedy

Because the page looks abandoned after archiving. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can never bear the emptiness. I always feel I need to leave a couple of threads behind or the black hole will swallow all of Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom. Just 1 hour into the 2nd presidential debate, did Obama say he was going to go after immigrant 'gangbangers'?Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't watch too many US cop shows. It's what The Bash Street Kids get to have with mash. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bejaysus! (Hope Zbrnajsem's not peepen) Same difference. mash. I doubt ya need a link for the variety of banger called a Strasburg sausage!--Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I´m quite eager to learn more English words or internet abbreviations. During my young years, I used to learn 10 English words per day from my ... - English dictionary. And now I am able to read TIME Magazine (and others) and to listen to the two cops. There is still no new Rasmussen Report after the debate, I suppose. Go ahead with your interesting semi-private conversation. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishi & Paul B: lol Knitwitted (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Christie's, the painting has been "historically identified" as the 15th earl, which just means that someone attached that name to it at some point in history. Its recent sales have been as portrait of an unknown male in the style of Mytens. Obviously, it's highly unlikely to be the man himself. The lot description of the most recent sale (14 Dec 2010) is:

MANNER OF DANIEL MYTENS Portrait of a gentleman, historically identified as John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford (c.1490-1540), three-quarter-length, holding a cane with identifying inscription 'John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford/Lord ...of England/Gibson pinxit' (lower left) oil on canvas 49¾ x 41¼ in. (126.5 x 105 cm.)

"Gibson" may, I guess, be a reference to the 18th century copyist Thomas Gibson.

Paul B (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lord ...of England" signifies that part of the inscription is damaged. Having looked at the more detailed file on the Christies website, I think the missing word was probably "chamberlain". It could be Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford. "Gibson" might be Richard Gibson (1615-90) rather than the 18th century one. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been added later. The inscription does say "John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford", but it may be a slip-up by the inscriber (possibly replacing an earlier faded or damaged inscription). A bit more research has revealed that Richard Gibson, a dwarf page, who was also an artist, was described as "little Dick, my lord Chamberlain's page". I'm not sure whether that means he was page to Henry when he was Lord Great Chamberlain, but it would explain the attribution to him if that's the case (though stylistically it does not look like his work). Paul B (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Gibson was page to Philip Herbert, L.C., not Henry de Vere L.G.C. Still, they both wave white sticks. I've created a page on Richard Gibson (painter). Paul B (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford and Elizabeth

The supposed Lord Great Chamberlain engraving looks 16th-17th century in style, but I don't know where it comes from originally. It's semi-emblematic in character so it's certainly unlikely to be a "portrait" in any realistic sense. I'll have a look at some books on images of Elizabeth. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather the engraving is an adaptation by Hollar of a print by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder depicting a ceremonial procession of the Knights of the Garter. There is a photo of the original on the NPG website [1] (also in colour here). The original engraving is on nine sheets. The Bridgeman art library has images of several sheets [2]. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennington's Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar (p. 93) has an entry on the Hollar version of the design. No mention is made of Oxford. Roy Strong has this to say about the 1576 ceremony, which is the one depicted: "Elizabeth appeared arrayed in her garter robes and wearing a diadem of pearls upon her head, the sword of state borne before her by the Earl of Hertford, her mantle supported by the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Russell, and her train carried by the Countess of Hertford assisted by the Earl of Oxford." (The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry, p. 168) If this is accurate, I guess the image should go in the article dedicated to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the caption in the images online, and the one book I've got immediate access to is even fuzzier. I will be going down to London soon, so I'll look in ther British library for more detailed images - or maybe even have a look at the original prints in the BM. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to sneak snaps with mobile phones these days. They can be sniffy about cameras. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information on attribution and changed one of the categories, but I sure didn't rename it. Wouldn't know how. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be still there [3]. Maybe it just went for a walk. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [4]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My polite question to you, Mr. Reedy, is expressed above. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? If not, for whom do you act in my case? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That question shows there is a need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia before engaging in topics covered by discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBSAQ). The message posted at User talk:Zbrnajsem#Second notice--please comply with Wikipedia policy is standard for Wikipedia—sometimes an administrator leaves a message like that, but more often it is done by a non-admin editor. I recommend focusing more on the topic (Oxford), and less on other editors. In particular, a lot of your efforts on talk pages are wasted—just talk about the topic and whether particular text is warranted. Questions regarding how to matters can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. One way to check admin status is to view the contributions of an editor, then click "User rights" in the box at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you'll write a bio of Oxford based on what his contemporaries' biographers wrote about him. I think *that* would be an interesting read and I think whole-heartedly you would do an excellent job. Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

without wishing to ply the needle too savagely, Twitknitted, why should a biography of de Vere, or anyone else, be sourced to what biographers of his contemporaries say (en passant?) about him? Like writing a biography of Shakespeare according to what biographers of Essex, Leicester, Queen Elizabeth 1, Raleigh, Spenser, Donne, Burghley, Marlowe, Jonson, etc.etc., happen to say about him. I think you have your grammatical knickers in a twist.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say Squishidani, wouldn't it be interesting to read about the Ox as set against his contemporaries instead of in a Hoover vortex? BTW... I wasn't suggesting Tom write the bio for Wikipedia. I think he's capable of publishing his work in the real world of soybean ink. Enjoy your moment of blowing sunshine! Knitwitted (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what scanners you use and the software, of course. What type of dots are they? We have very high quality ones here at the uni, which I can access. BTW, I've redone the version of the Ashbourne portrait to get rid of that milky line of ectoplasm above the head on the right, but I haven't uploaded it yet. I was not sure whether that came from some sort of print fault or the scanning process. Shall I replasce the file? Paul B (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent you an email. I don't know if he's notable, but the article has been around for a while without being targeted for deletion, despite the weird title. One of the regular editors looks likely to to be Corbett himself. For a long while it emphasised his status as a cult anarcho-punk figure. This seems to be true, but the only sources I could find were Punk fan websites and YouTube (I have a soft spot for punk, but I won't be looking for Apostles albums if the stuff on YouTube is typical). The editor-who-may-be-Corbett then deleted all the Punk stuff, since he seems now to be promoting himself as a gentleman-scholar rather than an anarchist nihilist! As for his career as a photographer, I've no idea how significant he is in that field.

Of course that's all separate from the question of Lewes Lewknor's presence on the list. The book certainly exists and the author of a book does not have to be notable for the candidate to be listed. The Anne Whateley advocates are very obscure persons, as are many of the other originators of new candidates. Of course I know that we should have at least notification of the claims by an RS. I admit I couldn't find one. The book's only just been published, but someone (who I wonder?) has splashed stuff about it all over the web. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case I'm not gonna nominate it for deletion--it takes too much time and I'm sure somebody will get around to it someday. I don't like setting a precedent for including non-RS sources in the list, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps :) Best, Knitwitted Knitwitted (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am curious Tom. Why is it that whenever I post a comment directed to you your minions feel the need to come to your rescue? Just curious why you are not capable of forming your own response. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, can I be your minion? I have always wanted to be a minion! I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and I think it is time to move up... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Knitwitted (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I very much appreciate your very fine work on Bob's new page. It looks really good!!! I am hoping he will write you a very nice thank-you letter. Otherwise, I hope my thanks will be reward enough for being my henchman. Furthermore, my attorney has advised me to take under advisement your request to be my minion per your minion Paul which said acceptance would subminionate your minion's position. Please advise Paul of his impending demotion. Many thank yous again!!! Best wishes, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that certainly is a cornucopia of cushions. Of course they could all be grain merchants who did a bit of theology on the side. I'm also distressed to read that one of the Barlows was destroyed by "rabid fanatics". An ill omen. It's a pity I haven't been able to find a detailed published discussion of this sculptural convention. It would be good to have a section on it in the article. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. At least not in detail. One of my old tutors Nigel Llewellyn wrote about early modern funeral imagery, but there's no reference to the cushion torsos in his Art of Death. Scuplture is really rather neglected by art historians. There's the comprehensive series of books on public sculptures created by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, but I'm pretty sure that funerary monuments are not normally included as 'public' works. Peter Sherlock's Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England is more interested in epitaphs and theology than iconography. I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cushioned torsos. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earl of Oxford's Men, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII, Tumbler and Thomas Dekker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's Men (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrell was an "art critic"? If this is a reference to essay on the Ashbourne, I'd hesitate to call that art criticism, since it was not about evaluating it in any meaningful way. Or did he write some reviews of Picasso shows? Paul B (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrell was quite a prolific writer from around 1908 until he became a film producer and then after. He was a prominent socialist and also a conservationist. He wrote several articles about art and artists, and I found several references to him as an art critic. The WP article about him could be much longer if someone took the time to trawl Goggle. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did try that once, but came up with nothing. Did you bjust do a straight search or find this material using a more sophisticated approach? Paul B (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled his full name in quotes on the wed, Goggle books, and images. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your recent article "Oxford's Men"... very nice research!

Is there any chance you would provide cites to Fripp and Groves (or anyone else) which shows how Shax used the Tomson N.T.? I'd like to correct my essay to reflect the facts. Thanks very much for your help! Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knitwitted, I'm not going to take the time to research an off-handed comment. All I know is that Fripp said it, and I'm sure his research is documented somewhere, since he was an ordained divine with a religious education that I doubt anyone now alive can match. You'll just have to do it yourself. I know his papers on archived at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. You might want to e-mail them as to what their holdings are; I've always found them to be very helpful. The Oxford's Men article is nowhere near complete. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I certainly wasn't asking you to conduct research. I just thought you might have already done so and ascertained the validity of Fripp's/Grove's statements before posting said statements. Thank you for your suggestions for further resources... much appreciated!! :) re Oxford's Men... Perhaps as you say "nowhere near complete" but certainly a great beginning... Best with your research, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I take it that you have answered your own question, since you have now added an image from the Folger website? I'm impressed that you found that image. I find negotiating the Folger website painfully confusing. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference in Schoenbaum for one image. If I had folio numbers for the others I could get them, but I suppose one image is enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would be nice to know exactly where the others are. The Severn book appears to group the entries thematically, and it only includes the "interesting" ones - or what Severn considers to be the interesting ones. It's referred to as a "diary", but it really just appears to be notes and comments written over the years, most of which are not definitively dateable. At least that's the impression I get from the literature and the Folger facimilies. Still, I'd like to be able to find out exactly how the various comments are grouped and whether there is any context for them. Your photo reveals that one comment follows directly from one of the others. But the secondary literature often groups them in different ways. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trawling through the internets looking for references. I found some Ward information in this book beginning on 298. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found them. Schoenbaum sent me to chambers, and Chambers sent me to Munro. I'll have them all up in a little while. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tom Reedy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Tom, are you planning to add something that establishes notability to your new article on Margery Golding?That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B. You may want to keep it in your userspace until you do, because as it stands, it could get speedy deleted at any time. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was planning to add some more info, but as to notability if she doesn't qualify then I suppose the info should go in her husband's article. I was thinking about that yesterday after reading that particular part of WP:N and thinking that about half the articles in Category:De Vere family don't qualify either. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought: should Edmund Shakespeare and Gilbert Shakespeare be in his father's article also? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rather think so. Unless you can find some info about Edmund's acting career to add? I know it's hard. I've made some late 17th-century actor stubs that went over all right, but with them I was able to add one or two parts they played and even gossip about audience reaction, thanks to The London Stage 1660–1800 and the Highfil-Burnim-Langhans Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, bla bla … in London, 1660–1800. Wonderful books. Nothing remotely like that wealth of material for the earlier period, of course. (Thank you Pepys and Colley Cibber.) My second thought: before you kill or redirect any of those articles, you may want to consult somebody more specialised in notability than me. For instance ask at the Notability noticeboard. Theoretically, there shouldn't be any different requirements for notability for the brother of Shakespeare compared to a modern celebrity, but possibly the practice is a little different. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mind either way. It is not however a 'non-sequitur' (i.e.not following logically from what precedes): I put it in to introduce the remarks that follow. The low-survival rate of documents may have been covered elsewhere, I don't reread the whole page everytime I edit, but the point is important to understand why the sceptic objections re lack of evidence they insist must be there to 'prove' anything just fly in the face of the hazards of documentary survival.You know the page better than I, so either remove the Callaghan source as well or, if reconsideration changes your view, perhaps relocate it. Cheers, Tom Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found what I believe is a good way to reintegrate this passage. Nobody can please everybody. But I can try. Cheers, Tom and Nish. --Alan W (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, after writing the above note, I noticed that your talk page is in the category De Vere Family. Oxford isn't really your great-great-great, etc., grandfather, is he? --Alan W (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed that by inserting ":" to give [[:Category:De Vere family]] (which makes a link to the category, like this). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that (see my own use of the colon just above), yet when I tried to find and fix what you just did, I missed it somehow. Getting late here, and I'm just bleary eyed, I suppose. Problem solved, and thanks, John! --Alan W (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I went back and saw how I did that! Thanks for noticing and clearing it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You inadvertently did the same thing, twice, on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard, which I've now fixed as well. Seems there should be a better way of avoiding this problem, which must be common. Using the colon is a rather obscure bit of markup, which I learned only today, after what I typed above the first time didn't look right, which led me to look up more about Wikilinking in the Help pages. And then I stumbled trying to fix the problem but soon saw that John had stepped in. I'll add that I'm relieved to know that Oxford isn't really an ancestor of yours, given some of the things you've said about him. Good night, Tom! --Alan W (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got ancestors who did worse things than Oxford! I've become quite fond of the old reprobate over the years. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the colon is a rather obscure bit of markup, which I learned only today,

Using the colon gerts rid of a great deal of obscure darkdown. James McAuley, on being offered the choice of a colostomy for bowel cancer, preferred to ignore the indignity and accept death, quipping:'Better a full stop than a semi-colon." Cheers, chaps! Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoJamestown, Virginia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom. I wanted to let you know that Old Moonraker has not editied since August of 2012. I miss him and I hope that he is well. You might already be aware of this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link to an article "Wikipedia's Shakespeare Problem" at the top of the talk page for the SAQ article and so posted the following. I thought it courteous to let you know.

Wikipedia Stratfordians have a fresh problem - Stanley Wells! They have classified the Shakespeare Authorship Question as 'fringe' but now Wells is on record as being concerned that it's entering the mainstream. One editor in particular - Tom Reedy - seems totally averse to this being cited in notes where it strikes me as wholly relevant. They really need to change their policy on this, Authorship questioners may be a very small minority in academia, but they can no longer be classified wholly as 'fringe' Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I kept up with what every crackpot wrote about me I'd have time for little else. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The letter appears to have disappeared.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been written in French: they usually end up down the gurgler.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This forensic analysis of our "problem" was featured in The Signpost' back in 2011: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These people show up here as regular as clockwork. Surely that must add some weight to the theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Tristram S would have it, they should wind up their c(l)ocks elsewhere. This ain't the place to screw up or screw around.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I have mentioned you in a discussion on Ed Johnson's talk page.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you in a discussion on my talk page.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Charles Dickens, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a derivative works template. Could you give me a link to one? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he refrains. It'll only get you to throw money the wrong way. See derivatives' market. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies.

I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that?

This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.)

1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoJohn Weever may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ ''Antient Funeral Monuments, of Great-Britain, Ireland, and the Islands Adjacent'' (1631, 1767] at Google books.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about the revert. I'm using some beta software (which really isn't a good excuse) and I didn't see your edit summary about the material being outdated. --Kangaroopowah 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The material was announcing already-completed casting and was redundant. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom, I thought I should ping you about this, in case you have ideas about a possible sockmaster. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I think "master" is overstating it a bit in this case.

It's amazing how you can't turn your back for a minute. Usually I'm the last to know when something like this comes up; the article and its offspring are so well looked after that by the time I find out about it it's already been taken care of. As tedious as the process was to get to ArbCom, it was well worth it.

P.S. My favouritest quote is "one of the most fascinating books of all time". Tom Reedy (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discretionary sanctions are a great comfort. I'll see your most fascinating book and raise you the quote at the top of my talkpage! I think I win because mine was actually in the article (briefly, yes, but several times!). Bishonen | talk 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Look up banana-bender if you are not familiar with the term, and just let your imagination run along correlated images evoked by a word that rhythms with 'sank'.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it is a very good article. Reminded me of college days. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring William Shakespeare (estimated annual readership: 4,550,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing William ShakespearetoFeatured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shakespeare's funerary monument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Titus Andronicus, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Texas for about 10 years now.--v/r - TP 16:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it takes a while to learn all the peculiarities! Tom Reedy (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that your recent notification to just selected members of the Fair Use Wikiproject (not all of them) regarding the NFR template is a direct violation of canvassing. (A message on the project's talk page would have been acceptable). I'm not reporting it at this point, but be aware that while it is fine to get more input such as from that project, you have to avoid narrow notification which is one clear sign of canvassing. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Report away. My criteria was to go back five years with the expectation that the older members were the least likely to still have user accounts or be interested.

I really get tired of your cabal's clumsy attempts to threaten me. I know the rules; if you think you've got a case, just file it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]